Derbyshire Murders

by Martin Baggoley

  Colonel Delacombe returned to the police office at 11 p.m. and found that the prisoners had sobered up. The man could remember nothing of the earlier incident, and was shocked to learn he was to be charged with the attempted murder of two police officers.

  The White Hart Hotel at Ashbourne can be seen on the right-hand side of Church Street. Outside is a horse and trap similar to that hired by Mainwaring. (Author’s collection)

  Meanwhile, at the infirmary, Moss had asked to see his parents, who were brought from their home at Smalley. They remained at his bedside, and despite seeing him rally a little later on the Saturday night, he died the following day at fifteen minutes past noon.

  By this time, the police had identified their prisoners. The woman was Annie Green, a local prostitute, and her companion was Gerald Mainwaring. When charged with Moss’s murder during the Sunday afternoon, he asked if his victim had been a married man, and he expressed some relief on discovering he had been a bachelor.

  A quiet, unassuming and conscientious officer who had been popular with colleagues of all ranks, twenty-six-year-old Moss had joined the force two years earlier. Before that he had served in the Grenadier Guards and remained a member of the Reserves.

  The man accused of his murder was the twenty-five-year-old son of the late Revd Mainwaring of Whitmore Hall, Staffordshire, who had served as a magistrate on the Newcastle bench. Despite his high social standing, the prisoner had led a wild and hedonistic lifestyle, which led to plans for him to enter the church as a career having to be abandoned when he was in his youth.

  Four years before finding himself in a Derby police cell, facing a murder charge and possible execution, Mainwaring had travelled to North America, where he had become a successful farmer in Manitoba. He had returned to England in mid-April 1879 to spend a few weeks holiday at the home of his two sisters, who lived in Clifton, near Ashbourne. As the time approached for him to return to Manitoba, he had decided to spend a few days in Derby, where he could enjoy himself in his own particular manner, away from the restrictive atmosphere of his sisters’ home.

  Having hired a horse and trap from the White Hart in Ashbourne on the previous Tuesday, he had booked in at the Royal Hotel on his arrival in Derby. He spent the following days drinking heavily, and spent a great deal of time in the company of Annie Green, who lived in a brothel on Bradshaw Street. This had supposedly been closed down by the police some months earlier, but its owner, Sophia Gilbert, had reopened the premises in the guise of a cigar shop.

  Mainwaring’s money had soon run out and he was forced to pawn his watch and five rings to finance his stay for a few days more. He decided to return to Ashbourne on the afternoon of Saturday, 12 July.

  It was during his stay in Derby that Mainwaring had bought the gun used in the shootings of the police officers, for £3 10s, at the Market Place premises of Messrs Dobson and Rosson. Mrs Euphemia Dobson, who sold it to him, later told the police that Mainwaring also had in his possession the chamber of a Colt revolver, for which he purchased 300 rounds of ammunition, together with 200 rounds for the new weapon. Mainwaring told Mrs Dobson that he would need both guns for use when he returned to North America in a few days time.

  On the day of the crime, he and Annie Green began drinking heavily in the morning, and both were drunk by the early afternoon. He ordered his horse and trap to be made ready, and the couple left at 3.15 p.m.

  Mainwaring asked Annie Green to accompany him to Clifton, but she was reluctant to do so, and he agreed to take her back to Mrs Gilbert’s premises. There, she got out of the trap, and as she staggered towards the front door, he had a change of mind. He too approached the door, which had been opened by Mrs Gilbert. He insisted that the young woman accompany him, but Mrs Gilbert would not let her go, telling him ‘I insist she shall not go out, she is in so beastly a state’.

  Mainwaring, however, was not to be so easily persuaded, and as he pulled out his gun, which he kept down by his side, he retorted, ‘Now will you let her go?’ Mrs Gilbert was not initially intimidated, as she replied, ‘No, let her lie down and have a sleep, and then go out if you wish’.

  Mainwaring, however, was not to be denied. He grabbed hold of his paramour, and pointed the gun at Mrs Gilbert, who cried out, ‘Oh for God’s sake, he is going to shoot me! Take her and go!’

  A neighbour, Harry Harrison, disturbed by the fracas, emerged from his front door to see the gun being pointed at Mrs Gilbert. As Mainwaring climbed back into the trap, Mr Harrison pointed to the gun and said, ‘You had better put that thing away’. Mainwaring glared at him, and shouted menacingly, ‘I have shot better than you!’ He drove off but would be arrested just a few minutes later at the Traveller’s Rest.

  Mainwaring appeared in the local police court on two occasions; these were on the Monday and Wednesday following the shootings, before he was committed by the magistrates to stand trial at the next assizes. It had been decided that there were insufficient grounds to charge Annie Green with any involvement in the shootings, but she appeared in the police court on Monday, 14 July, charged with being drunk and also with assaulting Constable Clamp.

  At the hearing she claimed to remember nothing of the events of the previous Saturday afternoon. Nevertheless, she accepted the evidence given by the police officers. However, she pointed to her badly blackened eye, and suggested that anything she had done would probably have been in response to the rough manner in which she claimed she was handled by the police. After giving the matter some thought, Colonel Delacombe withdrew the assault charge, and she was therefore convicted only of being drunk. The magistrates fined her 10s or fourteen days’ imprisonment in default. She had no means of paying and was taken to Derby Gaol.

  The inquest into Moss’s death was held on Tuesday, 15 July in the boardroom of the infirmary, before Mr J. Close, the county coroner. The accused was not present, but he was represented by local solicitor, Mr Hextall. Present in court were Mainwaring’s brother and Constable Moss’s distraught mother and sister.

  Colonel Delacombe outlined the case against the accused, and two particularly powerful statements were read out to the jury. The first was a brief description of the post-mortem findings, which gave graphic details of the devastating impact of the bullet which killed Moss, and the second was the reading of the victim’s deposition, taken as he lay dying.

  The post-mortem had been performed by the infirmary’s acting surgeon, Hugh Redmayne. After describing the failed attempts to save the officer’s life, the jury was told that the bullet had passed through his ribs, badly damaging his liver and gall bladder.

  The chief constable next read the dead man’s deposition to a hushed room:

  I was in the police office, about half past four, and I assisted to take two prisoners into the station house. One was a man and the other was a woman. I was standing close to the man, when the other officers were taking the woman into the cells. The man lifted a revolver up and said ‘Stand back, I’ll have no more of this’. I heard a report, and I felt a shot in my right side, and fell down. I said ‘I am shot’.

  The Corn Market, where the funeral procession was held up due to the large number of Derby residents wishing to pay their respects to Constable Moss. (Author’s collection)

  Inspector Spibey and Constables Price, Shirley and Clamp were present. I remember nothing until I found myself here. I heard three reports of a shot, two after I was shot. I make this declaration believing that I am about to die.

  Mr Hextall had attempted to prevent the deposition being read out at the inquest, but the coroner allowed it, pointing out that such deathbed statements were acceptable and crucial pieces of evidence. Mr Close further advised the jury to ignore the defence claims that Mainwaring’s judgement had been impaired as he was drunk. The coroner emphasised that if he had been under the influence of alcohol, it would not excuse the crime or reduce the level of seriousness in any way. The jury retired for ten minutes before returning with their verdict. They decided that Constable Moss had be
en the victim of wilful murder, and Mainwaring was sent for trial on a coroner’s warrant.

  While Mainwaring languished in Derby Gaol, Constable Moss’s funeral took place on Friday, 18 July. Several thousand people from Derby and much further afield lined the route from the infirmary grounds to the cemetery. The body was placed in a polished oak coffin, which bore a brass plate inscribed: ‘Joseph Moss, died July 13th 1879, aged 26’. The coffin was placed in a glass-sided hearse, and draped in a Union Jack flag, on which a number of wreaths were placed.

  Members of the Derby Borough Police and the Derbyshire County Force were present in large numbers, and many officers from the neighbouring Nottingham force, including its band, also attended. All of these officers had paid their own travel expenses, and many had worked through the previous night, so had not yet slept. Each officer wore black crape on his left arm as a mark of respect.

  In view of the deceased’s past military service, an invitation had been extended to any serving military personnel who were in the town at the time. Two non-commissioned officers from the Grenadier Guards responded to the invitation, and took a leading role in the cortège. Sergeant Coney and Corporal Minns made a splendid sight in their distinctive busbies, and received a warm response from those lining the route. Members of the watch committee, representatives of the town council and many of the borough’s magistrates were also present. The chief mourners, however, were members of the dead officer’s family, and these were his parents, William and Louisa, his siblings John, Lillie and Louisa, along with a cousin and four aunts.

  The crowd was so dense in the Corn Market that the procession was delayed for some time, while a path through was cleared. At the cemetery, the coffin was carried into the chapel between ranks of the late constable’s uniformed colleagues, and the service was conducted by Revd F.J. Lyall, vicar of St Luke’s.

  Such was the interest in Mainwaring’s trial, which was held at the Derby Assizes on 1 August 1879, that a huge downpour of rain did not deter a large crowd from besieging the court building. However, admission was by ticket only, so that most of the crowd were left outside, disappointed as well as drenched.

  At 10 a.m. the trial judge, Mr Justice Lindley, took his seat; the prosecution was led by Mr Lawrence QC, who was assisted by Horace Smith; the defendant was represented by the Solicitor General, Sir Hardinge Giffard QC MP, and Mr Harris. When the charges of the wilful murder of Constable Moss, and the attempted murder of Constable Price were formally put to him, Mainwaring pleaded not guilty to both matters.

  The prosecution’s first witness was Fanny Davis, a waitress at the Royal Hotel. She testified that the accused had drunk heavily throughout his stay, and this was especially so on the morning of the day on which the shootings occurred. Next, Sophia Gilbert and Joseph Harrison described his threatening behaviour that day, when he insisted that Annie Green accompany him to his sisters’ home. The police officers on duty on the day of the shootings, including Constable Price, whose arm was still in a sling, described the chase through Derby and the events which took place in the charge room. Henry Wibberley told of hearing Mainwaring’s threat to shoot the officers, and medical evidence was given of the wounds suffered by the two victims. Finally, the deathbed deposition of Constable Moss was read out in court.

  The defence could clearly not attempt to persuade the jury that their client was not responsible for shooting both officers, and they called no witnesses other than two of his former school masters, a vicar and an old family servant, to testify to his more positive qualities. Nor was the Solicitor General especially aggressive in his cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses. Instead, he focused solely on the issue of his client’s drunken state. It was under his questioning that Fanny Davis revealed to an astonished court that with their breakfasts on that fateful Saturday morning, Mainwaring and his female companion had between them drunk three pints of claret and a quart bottle of brandy. His questioning of the police officers revealed that they all believed that Mainwaring had been extremely drunk from the moment of his arrest, until much later that night. Colonel Delacombe acknowledged this when he described finding it impossible to question his prisoner for several hours, and told the court how at one stage he had found the prisoner lying on the floor of his cell rambling incoherently.

  The prosecution realised that the defence was attempting to persuade the jury that Mainwaring had been so drunk that he had not been fully responsible for his actions. Therefore, in his final address to the jury, Mr Lawrence stressed that the Crown considered him to have been master of his own actions, and that no one had the right to incapacitate him or herself through alcohol, and later use this as an excuse for any criminal act.

  Sir Hardinge did indeed claim that Mainwaring’s drunken state was a critical issue, and should be taken into account when determining his fate. For instance, there had been no malice aforethought, and the fact that the shootings had taken place in a room full of police officers demonstrated that he could not have realised what he was doing, nor could he have been aware of the consequences of his actions. Sir Hardinge did not suggest that his client did not deserve to be punished for his crimes, but insisted that he should be convicted of manslaughter and not wilful murder.

  In his summing up the judge gave the jury a clear direction on the issue of the accused’s drunken state. He emphasised that it had been established some years earlier in law that being drunk could not excuse murder, and it could not be used as a reason for reducing the charge to manslaughter.

  The jury retired at 1 p.m., returning three hours and twenty minutes later. They had found Mainwaring guilty of murder, but added a strong recommendation for mercy. Mr Justice Lindley sentenced him to death, and advised him that he would pass the jury’s recommendation to the Home Secretary, but in view of the nature of the crime, he should not expect to be reprieved.

  As the jury would become one of the most notorious in legal history, not because of their verdict, but the manner in which it was reached, it is worth recording their names. They were; Charles Astle, John Halliday, John Wood, Vincent Shepherd, Francis Ludlow, Joseph Mitchell Tempest, Henry Kent, John Pym Stevens, John Stevenson, Samuel Burton, John Bromley and William Sheldon.

  On Monday, 4 August, the murder trial having ended, Derby Member of Parliament, Sir Wilfrid Lawson raised the case in the House of Commons. He asked the Home Secretary, Richard Assheton Cross, whether consideration had been given to prosecuting the landlord of the Royal Hotel, in view of the details that had emerged at the trial. The Home Secretary confirmed that the landlord, John Taylor, would indeed face prosecution, and that furthermore he would be appearing before the Derby Magistrates on the following Thursday.

  At that hearing, John Taylor appeared before the local bench to face a charge of permitting drunkenness on his premises, to which he pleaded not guilty. His solicitor was Mr Briggs, who complained that the public notoriety given to the matter by Sir Wilfred was unfair and unwarranted, and his client had done nothing wrong. The magistrates did not agree with this argument, finding the landlord guilty and fining him £3.

  Another piece of unfinished business that could now be concluded was to acknowledge Constable Price’s bravery. Many townspeople felt that this deserved public recognition, and ten of Derby’s leading citizens each donated £1 towards a collection for him. The officer was presented with the £10 by the mayor, W.J. Smith, in a ceremony at the police court. This was intended to be a contribution towards the cost of a holiday to help in his recovery, and he informed those assembled at the presentation that he would be going to stay with friends in Kent.

  It was about this time that rumours began to circulate about the manner in which the jury had reached its verdict. On 6 August, a Sheffield newspaper claimed that six members of the jury had wanted to convict Mainwaring of manslaughter, whereas the remainder had favoured a conviction for murder. To end this deadlock and reach a verdict, they were alleged to have drawn lots, and the member who drew a blank card would decide what
the verdict would be. It was also reported that the jury member who drew that card had actually favoured a verdict of manslaughter, but decided to opt for a murder conviction in deference to the feelings of those who favoured such a finding. The differences in the jury room were said to have arisen from a feeling shared by six of them that the judge’s guidance notwithstanding, and despite the very serious nature of the offences, they had not been premeditated acts, and Mainwaring had behaved in a manner he would not have done if he had been sober.

  On 11 August, Charles Astle, a wheelwright of Aston-on-Trent, made a public statement in which he attempted to explain what had occurred. He stated:

  After retiring from the box, I found that there were six in favour of a verdict of murder, and a similar number in favour of a verdict of manslaughter. Perhaps I might add that my own views were in favour of the latter. After a considerable time, the discussion was so very wearisome and desultory, that it was decided among us to elect a chairman, I having refused to act. None of the jurymen would consent to occupy the position, and eventually we decided to cast lots for who was to be the chairman. Accordingly this was done, but as to drawing lots or tossing up as to the verdict we were to return, that is a tissue of falsehoods and without the slightest shadow of foundation.

  This, however, did not put an end to the matter, especially as it later emerged that when Mr Astle was asked by the Home Office for an explanation of what had occurred in the jury room, he gave a different version of events. In this he confirmed that the jury members decided that a majority of them would decide upon the verdict, and if the numbers were equal, the chairman chosen by ballot would have the deciding vote.

  There was a widespread sense of incredulity that it could be left to just one man in effect, to more or less decide on the fate of a man on trial for his life. The behaviour of the Mainwaring jury was considered by many to be contrary to the basic features of trial by ones peers, in which a verdict should be agreed by all of the members of the jury and should be reached by rational means, based on evidence presented in court. Some called for a retrial while others believed that there should at least be a reprieve for Mainwaring.